EAZ-fix/Rollback RX and disk imaging

I did a RAW image with IFW.
Partition size is 50Gb
No compression
Validate
Byte for byte.

Result is that it did not backup all the snapshots. It is the same result as when doing a regular image: the current snapshot. Rollback dissapeared so I had to reinstall it. I guess if I did it with IFD the outcome would be the same as a regular backup (it images the baseline instead)

 

Just noticed this on the EAZ-FIX site:

http://kb.eazsystem.com/article.php?id=096

Can't remember reading this before, so may have just been placed.

John

 

I believe it AFTER testing.

 

That is disappointing.
I wonder, though, if running Image for Dos from floppy would make a difference. I can imagine that the eazFix driver controls disk access when you image in Windows.

 

Look forward to your test results

John.

 

Just completed a few tests using EAZ-FIX and TrueImage - as I’m just an ordinary computer user and no expert, the tests aren’t very scientific, but it’s the best I can do.

Using TrueImage from within Windows I made an incremental backup to an existing image.
Booting from the TrueImage rescue CD I started the restore procedure. At the point where it asked to select a partition, or whole hard drive to restore, I clicked in the drive only box.
Started the restore process with verification and the time taken was 7 minutes to completion.
Received the message that the data was successfully restored and rebooted, the subsystem console was shown then a blank screen with a flashing curser, at this stage nothing else happened.

Rebooted again using TrueImage rescue CD and started the restore procedure, this time at the point where it asked to select a partition, or whole hard drive to restore, I clicked all boxes (MBR and Track0).
At the end of the restore I received the message that the data was successfully restored and rebooted, the subsystem console was shown and Windows continued to start. Once Windows had completed I checked EAZ-FIX snapshot management and the Baseline, and one snapshot was shown.

I tried restoring again using the drive only (tick) box and ended up with the blank screen and blinking curser. (This was only done to verify that the same problem would arise).

From this point on I used the restore MBR and Track0 at all times. In all, I restored the system six (6) times making further snapshots between each restore, in all cases snapshot management showed the correct number of snapshots after restoration.

I now feel confident that TrueImage and EAZ-FIX will work together okay.

John

 

John,

Your test efforts are highly appreciated.
I would add a step to the test, though. I understand that you verified that all snapshots that you created before the test are available after the restore. Would you mind switching to all the available snapshots and verify that they boot without error messages?

Thank you

 

From what I can read, it seems to be OK indeed.

RollbackRx + TrueImage does NOT work, TI doesn't restore all the snapshots, just one : current or baseline and that is unacceptable.

 

Does it mean that the smae might me true of RollbackRx and ATI?

 

Doesn't EAfix and RollbackRX the same software with a different name? If so than, if EAFix + TI works, shouldn't be true for RollbackRX + TI?

 

I never tested RollbackRx + TI, but pvsurfer used both and TI restored only one snapshot (current or baseline) on his computer, the rest was gone.

 

So, Rollback Rx and EAFix ain't exactly the same thing?!? Is that what we should understand?

 

Apparently not, EAZ-Fix must have fixed it and is now compatible with TI, that's why it calls "EAZ-Fix".

 

Knew I'd miss something

After the tests I updated the baseline so I'm unable to do as you ask. However, if the baseline update worked okay (which it did) doesn't that show that the snapshots couldn't have been corrupted?

John.

 

John's results are fairly consistent with those that I have reported using ATI with RB, with possibly a couple of exceptions:

1. Everytime after restoring my ATI image, all of my interim RB snapshots (i.e., those taken between the baseline and the current snapshot) were gone! I booted into (and only had) either the current snapshot, when I had created the image from Windows, or the baseline snapshot, when I had created the image using ATI's boot CD. In either of those situations, the snapshot I booted into was now my new baseline (and only) snapshot... If John actually had his interim snapshots after his ATI restore (with EAZ-Fix) that would be a significant difference from my experiences with RB!

2. In all of my 6 attempted restores I never experienced a startup problem, but then again I always backed up the entire drive rather than just the partition.

pv

 

Hello PV,
At each restore I open EAZ-FIX and made another snapshot, on the last restore I had either 5 or 6 snapshots plus the baseline. Each time I restored it showed the exact number of snapshots made previously i.e. baseline plus 1 snapshot and so on. Hope I've understood the question correctly, but if not please ask again

In my case the hard drive C: hasn't any additional partitions just the entire drive. The startup problem I experienced was due to not restoring the MBR.

John

 

After any of your restores, are you sure you still had all of your 'old' snapshots (i.e., all the snapshots you had when you created the backup image)?

My C-drive also has but one partition, but when you backup with ATI you select the entire drive check box or the partition check box. I always selected the former one.

 

One other question... Are you using ATI Home or ATI Workstation (there could be a difference in their operation).

Shutting down now, but I'll look for your response tomorrow.

Goodnight

 

TrueImage Home - build 3677.

John.

 

After reading the questions put to me from Wilbert, and PV, I started to have a niggling doubt that maybe the tests I’d run didn’t prove anything.
Did all the snapshots show as stated, as PV asked?
Why hadn’t I done a test to see if the snapshots worked as they should, or were they in fact corrupted? Thanks Wilbert.
The more I thought about the test, the more I realised that if I didn’t do another test before going to bed there would be no way I’d fall asleep.

I checked EAZ-FIX and noted that I had the baseline, and three (3) snapshots.
I restarted the computer and booted into the TrueImage rescue CD and made a new backup image.
I allowed Windows to fully boot and opened a few programmes before restarting the computer and booting into the TrueImage rescue CD.
I started the restore procedure making sure to tick all boxes at the “select partition or whole hard drive to restore”.
The restore finished without a problem and Windows started up normally.
I checked EAZ-FIX and noted that all snapshots were shown (baseline plus three snapshots.
I then restored the three snapshots, one after the other, and all worked correctly.
I then deleted two of the snapshots, and again rebooted the machine just to make sure that everything worked correctly.

I hope this answers any queries that users might have in regards using TrueImage and EAZ-FIX together.

I’m now going to turn this $(*^$3 machine off and go to bed.

John.

 

Kapiti,
It seems like you found a working combination. : EAZ-Fix + Acronis True Image. Good job.

 

John did an excellent test, showing that TrueImage supports the snapshots of eazFix.
His posting is proof that John is a devoted computer user who wants to know what to expect from the software that he uses.

When I was evaluating eazFix, I tested the imaging support with TrueImage 8.0.937, because I never bothered to upgrade to the 9 series.
That test showed me that eazClone was a better choice for eazFix. Although I was disappointed, I accepted that.

Since eazSolutions states that TrueImage supports the snapshots, I took some time to examine the latest version of TrueImage, and focused on eazFix snapshot support.
I tested with TrueImage Workstation 9.1.3718.

Here are the steps that I took:

Code:

1. Create image of the whole disk after booting with the Acronis Rescue CD.
2. Boot with Windows XP installation CD and open the restore console
3. Write a standard MBR with both c:\windows>fixmbr.exe and c:\windows>fixboot.exe.
4. Boot with DOS floppy and erase the partition, create a 40 GB FAT32 partition and format it to make it bootable.
5. Verify that the system boots in the fresh DOS partition without any preboot screen.
6. Restore the whole disk from the TrueImage that I created for this test.
7. Boot into each and every of the [B]6[/B] snapshots that I had configured before I created the image.
8. Verified that they all boot without errors and all retain the correct configuration.

This shows that a more complex snapshot setup is restored without flaws by the mentioned release of TrueImage.
It also shows that all interim snapshots are bootable after the restore.
The image size is 1.13 GB.

Here a picture of the snapshots, used during this test:
http://www.geocities.com/wilbertnl/eazclone/eazFix_tree.png

John, thank you for motivating me to do this test!

 

Very interesting indeed... Since those results contradict my findings when using ATI with RB, I can only conclude that while similar (in their look & feel), EAZ and RB do have functional differences!

Edit: Wil, when you restored the image which you created using ATIW's Boot CD, it seems as if it restored you into your then current snapshot (as well as capturing all snapshots which you had at the time you created the image) is that correct? That too is way different than my experience when I restored using ATIIW's Boot CD. As I've reported, I wound up in my RB baseline snapshot (without any others available to me)!

 

You want me to repeat this test script with RB?
Notice that I imaged from the rescue CD.

 

Just wondering, how can that be since it is the same team working on those two products? The last time I received an answer from technical support of RollbackRX (HDS), the answer came from Eric Sun and the same Eric Sun answer my question ask to technical support of EAFix...